PRAVEEN SONI Vs. RUPENDRA SONI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules has been filed against the order dated 2.7.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10945/2009.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the father of the present appellant and respondent No. 1 was employed as Office Assistant in the District Industries Centre Bhilwara, who passed away on 25.1.2009 while still in service. At the time of death, the deceased Shri Shyam Lal Soni left behind two daughters, one elder son by the name of Praveen Soni, the present appellant and the younger son Rupendra Soni, the respondent -writ petitioner. The elder daughter was already married and was residing with her husband at Beawar, whereas unmarried daughter Miss Seema Soni was residing with Rupendra Soni, the writ petitioner. The appellant Praveen Soni had acquired graduation degree in Engineering and had worked at various places at Indore up till the death of Shri Shyam Lal Soni. After the death of Shri Shyam Lal Soni, both the sons of the deceased claimed compassionate appointment in place of their father. In the application filed by Rupendra Soni, the writ petitioner claimed that he was wholly dependent on his father and had no independent source of income. In the said application, it was mentioned that the petitioner's unmarried sister, who was fully dependent upon the deceased had consented for giving him compassionate appointment in place of their father. The application also narrated that Praveen Soni, the elder brother was qualified as an engineer, was married and living separately and thus was not dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. The petitioner prayed for appointment on the post of a driver as he was holding a valid driving license or any Class IV appointment. On the other hand, the appellant -respondent Praveen Soni also moved an application claiming appointment on compassionate basis in place of his father to the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures). While seeking appointment, the appellant -respondent filled a Proforma specifically mentioning that he had no source of income and other dependents had gave consent for giving him compassionate appointment in place of deceased. He also submitted an affidavit in support of his application seeking compassionate appointment. Since two applications had been received by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, a letter was issued on 16.3.2009 to both the appellant -respondent and respondent -petitioner informing them that only one person could be provided compassionate appointment and the matter should be decided amongst themselves and the decision to be communicated to the department as to who should be preferred for compassionate appointment.

(3.) THE matter was heard and a detailed judgment came to be delivered by the learned Single Bench who came to the conclusion that the offer of appointment to Praveen Soni was illegal and arbitrary since the appellant herein has resorted to unfair means to obtain an appointment and the same had been offered to him in total contravention of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996"). The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition while imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/ - upon the appellant -respondent. Aggrieved against the order dated 2.7.2015 by which the appointment offered by the State to the appellant -respondent No. 5 was set aside, the present appeal has been filed.